Thanks Paul, will wait for the fixes in the upcoming revision and I will clear my Discuss when that version is out.
//Zahed On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 12:46 AM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sep 20, 2023, at 2:48 PM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 5:22 PM Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2023, at 3:23 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > DISCUSS: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Thanks for working on this documentation. > > > > > > I have one point that I would like to discuss to clarify the definition > > > understanding, I hope addressing this would improve this document. > > > > > > It defines- > > > > > > Full resolver: > > > This term is used in [RFC1035], but it is not defined there. RFC 1123 > defines a > > > "full-service resolver" that may or may not be what was intended by > "full > > > resolver" in [RFC1035]. This term is not properly defined in any RFC. > > > > > > While section 6 starts with - "This section defines the terms used for > the > > > systems that act as DNS clients, DNS servers, or both. ". It does not > really > > > define "Full resolver". I am not sure what I am supposed to do with the > > > definition (more like description) provided here. This should be > clarified. > > > what was the consideration here? > > > >> We touch on the topic of "not defined in earlier RFCs" at the beginning > of the introduction, and there are other terms in other parts of the > document that fall into that category, most notably "host name". In the > case of "full resolver", the WG decided not to make up a definition in this > document because the term in not used much any more. However, because it is > used many times in the foundational DNS documents (RFCs 1035 and 1123), the > WG wanted it listed here to show that it there is no current agreement on > what it means. > >> > >> Would it help if we amended the above description (you are correct that > it is not a definition) by changing the last sentence to "This term is not > properly defined in any RFC, and there is no consensus on what the term > means"? > >> > > This could work, as there is no "consensus on what the team means" and > we can't undefine it as it is in the foundational document. I think we can > actually discourage the usage of this term. May I suggest which will help > reader like me to understand what to do - > > > > "This term is not properly defined in any RFC, and there is no consensus > on what the term means. Hence the use of these term without proper context > is discouraged" > > Will fix. > >
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
